OUR OPINION: Court's gene ruling makes good sense

A technician loads patient samples into a machine for testing at Myriad Genetics Friday, May 31, 2002, in Salt Lake City. DNA samples are moved from one tray to another by the eight-needle apparatus at left. The Supreme Court ruled Thursday, June 13, 2013 that Myriad Genetics Inc. cannot patent the BRCA genes, which are tested to check a woman’s risk for breast and ovarian cancer. Mutations in these genes are what led Angelina Jolie to have both her breasts removed because she had such a high cancer risk. Some experts think the court ruling may lead to lower cost testing because there could be more competition. (AP Photo/Douglas C. Pizac)

SAN ANGELO, Texas - To most laypersons, it defies common sense that a private company could patent for profit a naturally occurring part of the human body. Fortunately, all nine justices of the U.S. Supreme Court felt the same way.

They ruled that human genes, specifically the breast-cancer genes BRCA1 and BRCA2, cannot be patented. USA Today said that the decision had immediate benefits for some ovarian-cancer and breast-cancer patients. American Civil Liberties Union attorney Sandra Park said, “Because of this ruling, patients will have greater access to genetic testing, and scientists can engage in research on these genes without fear of being sued.”

Myriad Genetics had held an exclusive patent on a form of gene that can predict an increased risk of genetic cancer, a key factor in whether a woman decides to have her breasts or ovaries removed. Most notably, actress Angelina Jolie, 37, announced last month that she underwent a double mastectomy after learning that she carried a version of the BRCA1 gene that doctors said gave her an 87 percent risk of breast cancer and a 50 percent risk of ovarian cancer. Her mother died of ovarian cancer at age 56.

Jolie could easily afford the tests and surgery, but USA Today says, “Most women who want testing must pay its price — $3,340 for the breast-cancer analysis and $700 for an additional test, called BART, which picks up a genetic link in about 10 percent of women who test negative the first time.”

Plaintiffs say they hope that lifting the patents on the two genes will lead to greater access to genetic testing and lower costs.

Myriad and the industry had argued that without patent protection, and the profits from that protection, there was less incentive to invest in research and development.

The court praised Myriad for isolating the genes, but said Justice Sonia Sotomayor: “In isolation, it has no value. It’s just nature sitting there.”

The court did rule that certain kinds of genetic tests may still be patented. These involve types of DNA that are not naturally occurring but are artificially created outside the body. Myriad said it has 24 such patents and these remain valid.

The court’s ruling was straightforward and, while finding that naturally occurring parts of the body — including the DNA that makes you you — cannot be patented, left plenty of other areas open for potentially profitable medical research.